Denying People's Humanity

Question:

Heh. You’d even like to pretend there’s not an abortion debate anymore. You’re really something else.

If there’s an abortion debate, then it should be about abortion, not tyrants.

Response:

: Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being – simply because the law says so.

Given that "human being" is a legal/social term, why do you think that a legal definition isn’t relevant? He is explaining why you are wrong.

No, abortion opponents cannot explain much of anything. All you do is insist that you are right and to hell with the facts. — Ray Fischer

Response:

http://members.aol.com/alanyu5/index.htm Bill Clinton’s big blunders have resulted in a police state- human rights is rhetoric but unlawful life control by involved local police became the reality. Revised:5/03/03 Human rights and national health care are some of Democrats’s most important slogans. Bill Clinton also tried his best to show the public that he also pursued these two goals. Did Clinton achieve these two goals in US during his term? Based on evidences and events, the answer is no. Also, the evidences tells that under Clinton’s administration, Americans’ human rights and national health care become rhetoric. But unlawful life control, health manipulation and inhumane murder (with invisibility technology, nonlethal weapon & illness/death inducing techniques) become the reality. How did all this happen? As the saying goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The involved police and involved agents, since the 1970s, have become corrupted after acquiring and abusing invisibility technology and illness/death inducing techniques; they are able to unlawfully control anyone’s life, and worsen anyone’s health. Before Clinton transferred the so-called non-lethal weapons (aka psychotronic weapons) to law enforcement, the invisible personnel (involved agents and police) mainly use psychotronic generator to attack people through a nearby electronic device (e.g. TV) and damage people’s health with microwave radiation or electromagnetic radiation. Clinton’s transfer of psychotronic weapons to law enforcement further placed the lives of Americans under imminent threat of illness and death by increasing the arsenal of the involved non-lethal weapon users, who have already been secretly using invisibility technology, illness/death inducing techniques, mind machine, among others. Because these so called non-lethal weapons mostly are lethal and some of weapons (e.g. radio-frequency weapon, laser weapon) even can be used to kill a target within ten minutes. To prove my conclusion is true, I would like to show the following evidences to you. The 32394 WASHINGTON POST reported: under Clinton’s administration, "The Pentagon and the Justice Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic ‘non-lethal’ weapons." According to Spotlight magazine report on 7/31/1995, Dr. Steven Aftergood, a FAS (Federation of American Scientists) spokesman said "The very term ‘nonlethal weapons’ or ‘less-than-lethal’ weapons is misleading , because many of these weapons could, in practice, turn out to be lethal." Nonlethal weapons’ original proponents are Col. John Alexander (an expert on death science) and left-wing scientist Mrs. Janet Morris. Janet Morris’ husband Christopher C. Morris was a former judge and key member of American security council. The above three persons play very important roles to cause military psychotronic weapon being transferred to law enforcement after named them as nonlethal weapon. Why would above three persons support to transfer military psy weapon to law enforcement? We know that there are some left-wing extremists and scientists who blindly worship technology and trash religion. They believe technology can determine everything and God does not exist. By using genetic engineering technology, they can clone animals now. I believe that they will use many excuses to secretly clone human. Their goal of human clone is to show us that human can be created by advanced technology and God doesn’t exist. Because unlawful life control’s concept is based on atheism. It is OK if scientists only use stem-cell research to make replacement organs, find cure for diseases such as Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes. But, the symptoms of Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes disease can be easily caused by invisible personnel’s attacks (see details on Part II-C1 of my website). So, we must stop invisible personnel committing crimes then combine the stem-cell research to solve the diseases of Parkinson, Alzheimer and diabetes. Unfortunately, Democrats and Bill Clinton trusted above three persons are such left-wing extremists (the researches of Janet Morris and Col. Alexander are deeply involved with invisibility technology). Also, some US involved agents, police and recruited operatives have this same ideology of atheism and blinded worship of technology (as left-wing extremists). Why? Because they can use invisibility technology and illness/death inducing techniques to unlawfully control everyone’s lives and health. Thus, these invisible personnel believe that God does not exist because they can manipulate human’s health and induce death on any unknowing person with impunity. However, to cover their true color, these invisible personnel might still go to church every week. But their goal is not to approach the God but approach the community for different purposes. The above facts tell that left-wing scientists and invisible personnel found common ground on atheism and blinded worship of technology. Thus, the invisible personnel would like to cooperate with left-wing extremists (& scientists) to get more power and advanced weapon to control the society and public. Under such kind of cooperation and common ground, the left-wing extremists (& scientists) would offer advanced technology and weapon to these involved agents and police. Since Bill Clinton trusted Mr. & Mrs. Morris and Col.Alexander, it shows that left-Wing scientists are main factors to cause Bill .Clinton’s blunder. So, in 1993, Col. Alexander became involved in the effort to develop nonlethal weapon for law enforcement during Clinton administration (see source). (Source) ===== MICROWAVE NEWS (on Nov/Dec 1993) report, In November, 1993, a three day top-secret non-lethal weapons conference took place in the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University in Maryland. The main purposes of the meeting was to prepare leading law enforcement officials for the use of psychotronic mind-control weapons. Amongst the subjects covered at the conference were "RADIO-FREQUENCY WEAPONS, HIGH POWERED MICROWAVE TECHNOLOGY, ACOUSTIC TECHNOLOGY" (used to transmit subliminal voices into a victims head), VOICE SYNTHESIS (mind control equipment), ELF and APPLICATION OF EXTREME FREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS TO NON-LETHAL WEAPONS." Col.John B. Alexander, Program Manager for Non-Lethal (psychotronic) Defense, Los Alamos National Laboratory, served as conference chairman. The 494 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN reported that "Janet E. Morris and her husband Christopher C. Morris have been involved in promoting a ‘psycho-correction’ technology (infrasound mind machine), developed by a Russian scientist, that is INTENDED TO INFLUENCE BY MEANS OF SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES EMBEDDED IN SOUND OR VISUAL IMAGES." In 1993, the Morrises organized a meeting in which the technology was demonstrated for U.S. scientists and officials by its Russian inventor." John Alexander and Mrs. Janet Morris both are experts of mind control technology (invisibility technology, mind machine, microwave voice device, subliminal message delivering device, etc). According to UK Lobster magazine in June 1993, Col. Alexander and Ms. Morris . have worked on a secret technology remote-viewing (invisibility technology -see Part II-B5 of my website), co-wrote a book "THE WARRIOR’S EDGE" (in 1990) and do a same thing -developed nonlethal weapon for law enforcement. The information prove that Mr. & Mrs. Morris and Col. Alexander share the same ideology. So, the real ability of the nonlethal (psychotronic) weapon can be known from Col. Alexander’s article. In his 1980 article "The New Mental Battlefield" in Military Review, John Alexander stated that "The ability to ..cause disease can be transmitted over distance, thus inducing illness or death for no apparent cause. The use of psychotronic weapons would be able to induce illness or death at little or no risk to the operator. The psychotronic weapon would be silent, difficult to detect and would require only a human operator as a power source" (see details on MILITARY REVIEW ENGLISH EDITION- DECEMBER 1980 – THE NEW MENTAL BATTLEFIELD). Based on Col. Alexander’s above words, it is obviously that calling psychotronic weapons "non-lethal weapons" is extremely misleading because these weapons are supposed to silently kill enemy. However, by using the name of non-lethal weapons, involved police and agents can legally obtain these weapons to unlawfully induce illness/death on American people with invisibility technology. Since these psy weapon leave no signs of external injury on victims bodies, their victims’ death always appear as the result of natural causes (see explanation later). However, to prevent their secret from leaking, Col. Alexander didn’t explain that why "The psychotronic weapon..require only a human operator as power source." So, I will explain it in details with two important points. (1). The secret is related with invisibility technology: What is invisibility technology? According to inside information from former Taiwan President Chiang Kai-Shek, the invisibility technology of Philadelphia Experiment tested in WWII has been developed successfully to use on human after WWII by US Navy. After using invisibility technology on the personnel and their equipment, they will become invisible, tiny (like small ant size) and can levitate (floating in air as zero gravity). Since these personnel & equipment will be rendered tiny by the invisibility technology, they are of little use in military combat; invisibility technology was later used in the field of surveillance. In 1950s, this invisibility technology was transferred to Taiwan. Each tiny invisible personnel, by wearing a propulsion device on back to control his movement while levitating, can function as a small flying ant. By combing this … read more »

Response:

: @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… : People : (human beings) : murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and : others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered : according to their laws but they were still important human being and : killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human : beings no matter what the law says. : : Yes, and? : The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus : (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and : their regimes. : Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being – simply because the law says so. He is explaining why you are wrong. The argument you are making is not conclusive, and indeed it is quite lacking in evidentiary value. John Savard

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : @pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… : People : (human beings) : murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and : others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered : according to their laws but they were still important human being and : killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human : beings no matter what the law says. : : Yes, and? : The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus : (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and : their regimes. : Please try to stay on topic. He is on topic.

Nope. He changed the subject from z/e/fs to human beings. You have made previous statements in the newsgroup that what is inside a woman’s uterus is not a human being

And provided the evidence which *nobody* has refuted as being lies or fraud or bogus in any way to back up my assertions. – simply because the law says so.

The law is the only place that defines a legal concept. And "human being" is purely a legal concept. That you find this difficult to understand simply means you are stupid! Not ignorant (you have been told the facts over and over again and had the evidence presented to you) but stupid… or lying! He is explaining why you are wrong.

No… more like making a baseless claim with *nothing* to back it up. I have back up my claim that the definition of "human being" all over the place is that the foetus must have become separates from the woman… ie. been born, before "human being" status is gained. That you (and others) don’t seem to ‘like’ this, doesn’t make the fact go away!

Response:

People murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says.

Not that you care since you have no problem at all with people dying. You’re just as willing to have people murdered for what you want as was Saddam. — Ray Fischer

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The baby in the womb Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status. People murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says. http://www.spuc.org.uk/images/

They are human beings by your definition. Don’t try and push your view as fact.

Response:

@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, alt.activism, soc.women, us.issues.abortion The baby in the womb Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status. People

(human beings) murdered in Saddam Hussein’s regime as well as Stalin’s and others’ regimes may not have had the ‘legal’ right not to be murdered according to their laws but they were still important human being and killing them was murder despite what the law said. These are human beings no matter what the law says.

Yes, and? The issue we are discussing here what is inside a woman’s uterus (foetus, embryo, zygote), not the killing of human beings by tyrants and their regimes. Please try to stay on topic.

Response:

The baby in the womb

Pat says: Doesn’t exist and what does (usually) exist during a pregnancy in a woman’s uterus is a zygote, embryo or foetus, none of which (whilst perhaps or perhaps not precious to the woman whose body is involved)… is a precious human being. Since all human beings have been born (become separate from a woman’s body)… by definition, then clearly whatever is inside a uterus is not a human being, does not have that legal status.

Response:

Filed under: Activism Definition

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism